Existing law requires the California Law Revision Commission to study, and limits the commission to studying, topics approved by resolution of the Legislature or by statute.

This measure would grant approval to the commission to continue its study of designated topics that the Legislature previously authorized or directed the commission to study and two new topics of study, as specified.

The measure would require the commission, before commencing work on any project within its authorized calendar of topics, to submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the Chairs and Vice Chairs of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, and any other policy committee that has jurisdiction, as specified. If a major change to the scope of work occurs during the course of the project, the measure would require the commission to submit a description of the change.

Existing law requires the California Law Revision Commission to study, and limits the commission to studying, topics approved by resolution of the Legislature or by statute.

This measure would grant approval to the commission to continue its study of designated topics that the Legislature previously authorized or directed the commission to study and two new topics of study, as specified.

The measure would require the commission, before commencing work on any project within its authorized calendar of topics, to submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the Chairs and Vice Chairs of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, and any other policy committee that has jurisdiction, as specified. If a major change to the scope of work occurs during the course of the project, the measure would require the commission to submit a description of the change.

Existing law requires the California Law Revision Commission to study, and limits the commission to studying, topics approved by resolution of the Legislature or by statute.

This measure would grant approval to the commission to continue its study of designated topics that the Legislature previously authorized or directed the commission to study and two new topics of study, as specified.

The measure would require the commission, before commencing work on any project within its authorized calendar of topics, to submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the chairs and vice chairs of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, and any other policy committee that has jurisdiction, as specified. If a major change to the scope of work occurs during the course of the project, the measure would require the commission to submit a description of the change.

WHEREAS, The California Law Revision Commission is authorized to study topics set forth in the calendar contained in its report to the Governor and the Legislature that have been or are thereafter approved for study by concurrent resolution of the Legislature, and topics that have been referred to the commission for study by concurrent resolution of the Legislature or by statute; and

WHEREAS, The commission, in its annual report covering its activities for 2025 and 2026, recommends continued study of 14 topics, all of which the Legislature has previously authorized or directed the commission to study, and the addition of two new topics of study; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate thereof concurring, That the Legislature approves for continued study by the California Law Revision Commission the topics listed below:

(1)Whether the law should be revised that relates to creditors remedies, including, but not limited to, attachment, garnishment, execution, repossession of property (including the claim and delivery statute, self-help repossession of property, and the Commercial Code provisions on repossession of property), confession of judgment procedures, default judgment procedures, enforcement of judgments, the right of redemption, procedures under private power of sale in a trust deed or mortgage, possessory and nonpossessory liens, insolvency, and related matters.

(2)Whether the Probate Code should be revised, including, but not limited to, the issue of whether California should adopt, in whole or in part, the Uniform Probate Code, and related matters.

(3)Whether the law should be revised that relates to real and personal property, including, but not limited to, a marketable title act, covenants, servitudes, conditions, and restrictions on land use or relating to land, common interest developments, powers of termination, escheat of property and the disposition of unclaimed or abandoned property, eminent domain, quiet title actions, abandonment or vacation of public streets and highways, partition, rights and duties attendant on assignment, subletting, termination, or abandonment of a lease, and related matters.

(4)Whether the law should be revised that relates to family law, including, but not limited to, community property, the adjudication of child and family civil proceedings, child custody, adoption, guardianship, freedom from parental custody and control, and related matters, including other subjects covered by the Family Code.

(5)Whether the law relating to discovery in civil cases should be revised.

(6)Whether the Evidence Code should be revised.

(7)Whether the law relating to arbitration, mediation, and other alternative dispute resolution techniques should be revised.

(8)Whether there should be changes to administrative law.

(9)Recommendations to be reported pertaining to statutory changes that may be necessitated by court unification.

(10)Whether the law of contracts should be revised, including the law relating to the effect of electronic communications on the law governing contract formation, the statute of frauds, the parol evidence rule, and related matters.

(11)Whether the law governing the place of trial in a civil case should be revised.

(12)Whether the Fish and Game Code and related statutory law should be revised to improve its organization, clarify its meaning, resolve inconsistencies, eliminate unnecessary or obsolete provisions, standardize terminology, clarify program authority and funding sources, and make other minor improvements, without making any significant substantive change to the effect of the law.

(13)The Legislature authorizes and requests that the California Law Revision Commission study, report on, and prepare recommended legislation to revise Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 25100) and Chapter 6.8 (commencing with Section 25300) of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, and related provisions, to improve the organization and expression of the law. Such revisions may include, but are not limited to, grouping similar provisions together, reducing the length and complexity of sections, eliminating obsolete or redundant provisions, and correcting technical errors. The recommended revisions shall not make any substantive changes to the law. The commissions report shall also include a list of substantive issues that the commission identifies in the course of its work, for possible future study.

(14)Whether the law should be revised to provide special rules that would apply to an area affected by a state of disaster or emergency declared by the federal government, a state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor under Section 8625 of the Government Code, or a local emergency proclaimed by a local governing body or official under Section 8630 of the Government Code. Before beginning a study under this authority, the commission shall provide notice to legislative leadership and any legislative policy committee with jurisdiction over the proposed study topic and shall consider any formal or informal feedback received in response to the notice; and be it further

(15)Whether the Education Code should be revised including, but not limited to, provisions relating to reporting requirements placed on local education agencies.

(16)Whether the Code of Civil Procedure should be revised, including, but not limited to, whether the statutes governing writ procedures should be revised; and be it further

Resolved, That before commencing work on any project within the calendar of topics the Legislature has authorized or directed the commission to study, the commission shall submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the chairs and vice chairs of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, and any other policy committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the study, and if during the course of the project there is a major change to the scope of work, submit a description of the change; and be it further

Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the California Law Revision Commission and to the author for appropriate distribution.

WHEREAS, The California Law Revision Commission is authorized to study topics set forth in the calendar contained in its report to the Governor and the Legislature that have been or are thereafter approved for study by concurrent resolution of the Legislature, and topics that have been referred to the commission for study by concurrent resolution of the Legislature or by statute; and

WHEREAS, The commission, in its annual report covering its activities for 2025 and 2026, recommends continued study of 14 topics, all of which the Legislature has previously authorized or directed the commission to study, and the addition of two new topics of study; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate thereof concurring, That the Legislature approves for continued study by the California Law Revision Commission the topics listed below:

(1)Whether the law should be revised that relates to creditors remedies, including, but not limited to, attachment, garnishment, execution, repossession of property (including the claim and delivery statute, self-help repossession of property, and the Commercial Code provisions on repossession of property), confession of judgment procedures, default judgment procedures, enforcement of judgments, the right of redemption, procedures under private power of sale in a trust deed or mortgage, possessory and nonpossessory liens, insolvency, and related matters.

(2)Whether the Probate Code should be revised, including, but not limited to, the issue of whether California should adopt, in whole or in part, the Uniform Probate Code, and related matters.

(3)Whether the law should be revised that relates to real and personal property, including, but not limited to, a marketable title act, covenants, servitudes, conditions, and restrictions on land use or relating to land, common interest developments, powers of termination, escheat of property and the disposition of unclaimed or abandoned property, eminent domain, quiet title actions, abandonment or vacation of public streets and highways, partition, rights and duties attendant on assignment, subletting, termination, or abandonment of a lease, and related matters.

(4)Whether the law should be revised that relates to family law, including, but not limited to, community property, the adjudication of child and family civil proceedings, child custody, adoption, guardianship, freedom from parental custody and control, and related matters, including other subjects covered by the Family Code.

(5)Whether the law relating to discovery in civil cases should be revised.

(6)Whether the Evidence Code should be revised.

(7)Whether the law relating to arbitration, mediation, and other alternative dispute resolution techniques should be revised.

(8)Whether there should be changes to administrative law.

(9)Recommendations to be reported pertaining to statutory changes that may be necessitated by court unification.

(10)Whether the law of contracts should be revised, including the law relating to the effect of electronic communications on the law governing contract formation, the statute of frauds, the parol evidence rule, and related matters.

(11)Whether the law governing the place of trial in a civil case should be revised.

(12)Whether the Fish and Game Code and related statutory law should be revised to improve its organization, clarify its meaning, resolve inconsistencies, eliminate unnecessary or obsolete provisions, standardize terminology, clarify program authority and funding sources, and make other minor improvements, without making any significant substantive change to the effect of the law.

(13)The Legislature authorizes and requests that the California Law Revision Commission study, report on, and prepare recommended legislation to revise Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 25100) and Chapter 6.8 (commencing with Section 25300) of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, and related provisions, to improve the organization and expression of the law. Such revisions may include, but are not limited to, grouping similar provisions together, reducing the length and complexity of sections, eliminating obsolete or redundant provisions, and correcting technical errors. The recommended revisions shall not make any substantive changes to the law. The commissions report shall also include a list of substantive issues that the commission identifies in the course of its work, for possible future study.

(14)Whether the law should be revised to provide special rules that would apply to an area affected by a state of disaster or emergency declared by the federal government, a state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor under Section 8625 of the Government Code, or a local emergency proclaimed by a local governing body or official under Section 8630 of the Government Code. Before beginning a study under this authority, the commission shall provide notice to legislative leadership and any legislative policy committee with jurisdiction over the proposed study topic and shall consider any formal or informal feedback received in response to the notice; and be it further

(15)Whether the Education Code should be revised including, but not limited to, provisions relating to reporting requirements placed on local education agencies.

(16)Whether the Code of Civil Procedure should be revised, including, but not limited to, whether the statutes governing writ procedures should be revised; and be it further

Resolved, That before commencing work on any project within the calendar of topics the Legislature has authorized or directed the commission to study, the commission shall submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the chairs and vice chairs of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, and any other policy committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the study, and if during the course of the project there is a major change to the scope of work, submit a description of the change; and be it further

Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the California Law Revision Commission and to the author for appropriate distribution.

WHEREAS, The California Law Revision Commission is authorized to study topics set forth in the calendar contained in its report to the Governor and the Legislature that have been or are thereafter approved for study by concurrent resolution of the Legislature, and topics that have been referred to the commission for study by concurrent resolution of the Legislature or by statute; and

WHEREAS, The commission, in its annual report covering its activities for 2025 and 2026, recommends continued study of 14 topics, all of which the Legislature has previously authorized or directed the commission to study, and the addition of two new topics of study; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate thereof concurring, That the Legislature approves for continued study by the California Law Revision Commission the topics listed below:

(1)Whether the law should be revised that relates to creditors remedies, including, but not limited to, attachment, garnishment, execution, repossession of property (including the claim and delivery statute, self-help repossession of property, and the Commercial Code provisions on repossession of property), confession of judgment procedures, default judgment procedures, enforcement of judgments, the right of redemption, procedures under private power of sale in a trust deed or mortgage, possessory and nonpossessory liens, insolvency, and related matters.

(2)Whether the Probate Code should be revised, including, but not limited to, the issue of whether California should adopt, in whole or in part, the Uniform Probate Code, and related matters.

(3)Whether the law should be revised that relates to real and personal property, including, but not limited to, a marketable title act, covenants, servitudes, conditions, and restrictions on land use or relating to land, common interest developments, powers of termination, escheat of property and the disposition of unclaimed or abandoned property, eminent domain, quiet title actions, abandonment or vacation of public streets and highways, partition, rights and duties attendant on assignment, subletting, termination, or abandonment of a lease, and related matters.

(4)Whether the law should be revised that relates to family law, including, but not limited to, community property, the adjudication of child and family civil proceedings, child custody, adoption, guardianship, freedom from parental custody and control, and related matters, including other subjects covered by the Family Code.

(5)Whether the law relating to discovery in civil cases should be revised.

(6)Whether the Evidence Code should be revised.

(7)Whether the law relating to arbitration, mediation, and other alternative dispute resolution techniques should be revised.

(8)Whether there should be changes to administrative law.

(9)Recommendations to be reported pertaining to statutory changes that may be necessitated by court unification.

(10)Whether the law of contracts should be revised, including the law relating to the effect of electronic communications on the law governing contract formation, the statute of frauds, the parol evidence rule, and related matters.

(11)Whether the law governing the place of trial in a civil case should be revised.

(12)Whether the Fish and Game Code and related statutory law should be revised to improve its organization, clarify its meaning, resolve inconsistencies, eliminate unnecessary or obsolete provisions, standardize terminology, clarify program authority and funding sources, and make other minor improvements, without making any significant substantive change to the effect of the law.

(13)The Legislature authorizes and requests that the California Law Revision Commission study, report on, and prepare recommended legislation to revise Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 25100) and Chapter 6.8 (commencing with Section 25300) of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, and related provisions, to improve the organization and expression of the law. Such revisions may include, but are not limited to, grouping similar provisions together, reducing the length and complexity of sections, eliminating obsolete or redundant provisions, and correcting technical errors. The recommended revisions shall not make any substantive changes to the law. The commissions report shall also include a list of substantive issues that the commission identifies in the course of its work, for possible future study.

(14)Whether the law should be revised to provide special rules that would apply to an area affected by a state of disaster or emergency declared by the federal government, a state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor under Section 8625 of the Government Code, or a local emergency proclaimed by a local governing body or official under Section 8630 of the Government Code. Before beginning a study under this authority, the commission shall provide notice to legislative leadership and any legislative policy committee with jurisdiction over the proposed study topic and shall consider any formal or informal feedback received in response to the notice; and be it further

(15)Whether the Education Code should be revised including, but not limited to, provisions relating to reporting requirements placed on local education agencies.

(16)Whether the Code of Civil Procedure should be revised, including, but not limited to, whether the statutes governing writ procedures should be revised; and be it further

Resolved, That before commencing work on any project within the calendar of topics the Legislature has authorized or directed the commission to study, the commission shall submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the chairs and vice chairs of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, and any other policy committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the study, and if during the course of the project there is a major change to the scope of work, submit a description of the change; and be it further

Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the California Law Revision Commission and to the author for appropriate distribution.

 CONSENT  

Bill No: ACR 168

Author: Pacheco (D), et al.

Introduced: 3/26/26

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 6/16/26

AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Reyes, Stern, Valladares, Wahab, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Ashby, Weber Pierson

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 73-0, 5/4/26 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: California Law Revision Commission: studies

SOURCE: California Law Revision Commission

DIGEST:

This measure, requested by the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC), grants approval to the CLRC to continue its study of 14 designated topics that the Legislature previously authorized or directed the CLRC to study. Additionally, the resolution grants approval to the CLRC to study two additional topics.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the CLRC to study topics approved by concurrent resolution of the Legislature. (Gov. Code Sec. 8293.)
2. Prohibits an employee or member of the CLRC, with respect to any proposed legislation concerning matters assigned to the CLRC for study, to advocate for the passage or defeat of the legislation by the Legislature or the approval or veto of the legislation by the Governor, or appear before any committee of the Legislature unless requested to do so by the committee or its chairperson. (Gov. Code Sec. 8288.)

This bill:

1. Makes the following findings:
   1. that the CLRC is authorized to study topics set forth in the calendar contained in its report to the Governor and the Legislature that have been or are thereafter approved for study by concurrent resolution of the Legislature, and topics that have been referred to the Commission for study by concurrent resolution of the Legislature or by statute; and
   2. that the CLRC, in its annual report covering its activities for 2025 and 2026, recommends continued study of 14 topics, all of which the Legislature has previously authorized or directed the CLRC to study, and the addition of two new topics of study.
2. Resolves that the Legislature approves for continued study by the CLRC the topics listed below:
3. Whether the law should be revised that relates to creditors’ remedies, including, but not limited to, attachment, garnishment, execution, repossession of property (including the claim and delivery statute, self-help repossession of property, and the Commercial Code provisions on repossession of property), confession of judgment procedures, default judgment procedures, enforcement of judgments, the right of redemption, procedures under private power of sale in a trust deed or mortgage, possessory and nonpossessory liens, insolvency, and related matters.
4. Whether the California Probate Code should be revised, including, but not limited to, the issue of whether California should adopt, in whole or in part, the Uniform Probate Code, and related matters.
5. Whether the law should be revised that relates to real and personal property, including, but not limited to, a marketable title act, covenants, servitudes, conditions, and restrictions on land use or relating to land, common interest developments, powers of termination, escheat of property and the disposition of unclaimed or abandoned property, eminent domain, quiet title actions, abandonment or vacation of public streets and highways, partition, rights and duties attendant on assignment, subletting, termination, or abandonment of a lease, and related matters.
6. Whether the law should be revised that relates to family law, including, but not limited to, community property, the adjudication of child and family civil proceedings, child custody, adoption, guardianship, freedom from parental custody and control, and related matters, including other subjects covered by the Family Code.
7. Whether the law relating to discovery in civil cases should be revised.
8. Whether the Evidence Code should be revised.
9. Whether the law relating to arbitration, mediation, and other alternative dispute resolution techniques should be revised.
10. Whether there should be changes to administrative law.
11. Recommendations to be reported pertaining to statutory changes that may be necessitated by court unification.
12. Whether the law of contracts should be revised, including the law relating to the effect of electronic communications on the law governing contract formation, the statute of frauds, the parol evidence rule, and related matters.
13. Whether the law governing the place of trial in a civil case should be revised.
14. Whether the Fish and Game Code and related statutory law should be revised to improve its organization, clarify its meaning, resolve inconsistencies, eliminate unnecessary or obsolete provisions, standardize terminology, clarify program authority and funding sources, and make other minor improvements, without making any significant substantive change to the effect of the law.
15. Whether the law should be revised to provide special rules that would apply to an area affected by a state of disaster or emergency declared by the federal government, a state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor, or a local emergency proclaimed by a local governing body or official.
16. Whether the Education Code should be revised, including, but not limited to, provisions relating to reporting requirements placed on local education agencies.
17. Whether the Code of Civil Procedure should be revised, including, but not limited to, whether the statutes governing writ procedures should be revised.
18. Specifies that the Legislature authorizes and requests the CLRC study, report on, and prepare recommended legislation to revise Chapter 6.5 and 6.8 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, and related provisions, to improve the organization and expression of the law and that such revisions may include, but are not limited to, grouping similar provisions together, reducing the length and complexity of sections, eliminating obsolete or redundant provisions, and correcting technical errors, while ensuring that recommended revisions do not make any substantive changes to the law. The CLRC’s report shall also include a list of substantive issues that the CLRC identifies in the course of its work, for possible future study.
19. Resolves that before commencing work on any project within the calendar of topics the Legislature has authorized or directed the CLRC to study, the CLRC shall submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the chairs and vice chairs of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, and any other policy committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the study, and if during the course of the project there is a major change to the scope of work, submit a description of the change.

Comments

The CLRC’s enabling statute recognizes two types of topics the CLRC is authorized to study: (1) those that the CLRC identifies for study and lists in the Calendar of Topics that it reports to the Legislature; and (2) those that the Legislature assigns to the CLRC directly, by statute or concurrent resolution. Once the CLRC identifies a topic for study, it cannot begin to work on the topic until the Legislature, by concurrent resolution, authorizes the CLRC to conduct the study. Direct legislative assignments have become much more common in recent years, and many of the CLRC’s recent studies were directly assigned by the Legislature. The CLRC is governed by Government Code Section 8293 which sets out the broad list of topics it is authorized to study. This authorization must be renewed in a concurrent resolution at least once per two-year legislative session. The most recent reauthorizations were through ACR 169 (Kalra, Resolution Chapter 138, Statutes of 2024) and ACR 24 (Chau, Resolution Chapter 108, Statutes of 2021).

This author-sponsored measure continues the authorization of the CLRC’s studies on 14 topics and adds two additional topics for the CLRC to study. The new topics are: whether the Education Code should be revised including, but not limited to, provisions relating to reporting requirements placed on local education agencies; and whether the Code of Civil Procedure should be revised, including but not limited to, whether the statutes governing writ procedures should be revised.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 7/1/26)

California Law Revision Commission (source)

Association of California School Administrators

California Association of School Business Officials

California School Boards Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 7/1/26)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 73-0, 5/4/26

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Carrillo, Castillo, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Ward, Wicks, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Bennett, Caloza, Chen, Flora, Wallis, Wilson

Prepared by: Margie Estrada / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

7/1/26 16:55:25

**** END ****

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: ACR 168 (Author:Pacheco)

Version: March 26, 2026

Hearing Date: June 16, 2026

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: ME

SUBJECT

California Law Revision Commission: studies

DIGEST

This measure, requested by the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC), grants approval to the CLRC to continue its study of 14 designated topics that the Legislature previously authorized or directed the CLRC to study. Additionally, the resolution grants approval to the CLRC to study two additional topics.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The CLRC’s enabling statute recognizes two types of topics the CLRC is authorized to study: (1) those that the CLRC identifies for study and lists in the Calendar of Topics that it reports to the Legislature; and (2) those that the Legislature assigns to the CLRC directly, by statute or concurrent resolution. Once the CLRC identifies a topic for study, it cannot begin to work on the topic until the Legislature, by concurrent resolution, authorizes the CLRC to conduct the study. Direct legislative assignments have become much more common in recent years, and many of the CLRC’s recent studies were directly assigned by the Legislature. The CLRC is governed by Government Code Section 8293 which sets out the broad list of topics it is authorized to study. This authorization must be renewed in a concurrent resolution at least once per two-year legislative session. The most recent reauthorizations were through ACR 169 (Kalra, Res. Ch. 138, Stats. 2024) and ACR 24 (Chau, Res. Ch. 108, Stats. 2021).

This author-sponsored measure continues the authorization of the CLRC’s studies on 14 topics and adds two additional topics for the CLRC to study. The new topics are: whether the Education Code should be revised including, but not limited to, provisions relating to reporting requirements placed on local education agencies; and whether the Code of Civil Procedure should be revised, including but not limited to, whether the statutes governing writ procedures should be revised. The Committee received no timely support or opposition to this measure.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the CLRC to study topics approved by concurrent resolution of the Legislature. (Gov. Code Sec. 8293.)
2. Prohibits an employee or member of the CLRC, with respect to any proposed legislation concerning matters assigned to the CLRC for study, to advocate for the passage or defeat of the legislation by the Legislature or the approval or veto of the legislation by the Governor, or appear before any committee of the Legislature unless requested to do so by the committee or its chairperson. (Gov. Code Sec. 8288.)

This bill:

1. Makes the following findings:
   1. that the CLRC is authorized to study topics set forth in the calendar contained in its report to the Governor and the Legislature that have been or are thereafter approved for study by concurrent resolution of the Legislature, and topics that have been referred to the Commission for study by concurrent resolution of the Legislature or by statute; and
   2. that the CLRC, in its annual report covering its activities for 2025 and 2026, recommends continued study of 14 topics, all of which the Legislature has previously authorized or directed the CLRC to study, and the addition of two new topics of study.
2. Resolves that the Legislature approves for continued study by the CLRC the topics listed below:
3. Whether the law should be revised that relates to creditors’ remedies, including, but not limited to, attachment, garnishment, execution, repossession of property (including the claim and delivery statute, self-help repossession of property, and the Commercial Code provisions on repossession of property), confession of judgment procedures, default judgment procedures, enforcement of judgments, the right of redemption, procedures under private power of sale in a trust deed or mortgage, possessory and nonpossessory liens, insolvency, and related matters.
4. Whether the California Probate Code should be revised, including, but not limited to, the issue of whether California should adopt, in whole or in part, the Uniform Probate Code, and related matters.
5. Whether the law should be revised that relates to real and personal property, including, but not limited to, a marketable title act, covenants, servitudes, conditions, and restrictions on land use or relating to land, common interest developments, powers of termination, escheat of property and the disposition of unclaimed or abandoned property, eminent domain, quiet title actions, abandonment or vacation of public streets and highways, partition, rights and duties attendant on assignment, subletting, termination, or abandonment of a lease, and related matters.
6. Whether the law should be revised that relates to family law, including, but not limited to, community property, the adjudication of child and family civil proceedings, child custody, adoption, guardianship, freedom from parental custody and control, and related matters, including other subjects covered by the Family Code.
7. Whether the law relating to discovery in civil cases should be revised.
8. Whether the Evidence Code should be revised.
9. Whether the law relating to arbitration, mediation, and other alternative dispute resolution techniques should be revised.
10. Whether there should be changes to administrative law.
11. Recommendations to be reported pertaining to statutory changes that may be necessitated by court unification.
12. Whether the law of contracts should be revised, including the law relating to the effect of electronic communications on the law governing contract formation, the statute of frauds, the parol evidence rule, and related matters.
13. Whether the law governing the place of trial in a civil case should be revised.
14. Whether the Fish and Game Code and related statutory law should be revised to improve its organization, clarify its meaning, resolve inconsistencies, eliminate unnecessary or obsolete provisions, standardize terminology, clarify program authority and funding sources, and make other minor improvements, without making any significant substantive change to the effect of the law.
15. Whether the law should be revised to provide special rules that would apply to an area affected by a state of disaster or emergency declared by the federal government, a state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor, or a local emergency proclaimed by a local governing body or official.
16. Whether the Education Code should be revised, including, but not limited to, provisions relating to reporting requirements placed on local education agencies.
17. Whether the Code of Civil Procedure should be revised, including, but not limited to, whether the statutes governing writ procedures should be revised.
18. Specifies that the Legislature authorizes and requests the CLRC study, report on, and prepare recommended legislation to revise Chapter 6.5 and 6.8 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, and related provisions, to improve the organization and expression of the law and that such revisions may include, but are not limited to, grouping similar provisions together, reducing the length and complexity of sections, eliminating obsolete or redundant provisions, and correcting technical errors, while ensuring that recommended revisions do not make any substantive changes to the law. The CLRC’s report shall also include a list of substantive issues that the CLRC identifies in the course of its work, for possible future study.
19. Resolves that before commencing work on any project within the calendar of topics the Legislature has authorized or directed the CLRC to study, the CLRC shall submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the chairs and vice chairs of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, and any other policy committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the study, and if during the course of the project there is a major change to the scope of work, submit a description of the change.

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for the measure

According to the author:

Since 1953, the California Law Revision Commission has reviewed California law and made recommendations on areas in need of reform. To continue this work, the Legislature must reauthorize the Commission’s jurisdiction in a concurrent resolution at least once every two-year legislative session. ACR 168 provides that reauthorization.

In addition to reauthorizing previously approved study topics, ACR 168 authorizes two new topics for review — (1) whether the Education Code should be revised, including, but not limited to, provisions related to reporting requirements placed on local education agencies (LEAs), and (2) whether the Code of Civil Procedure should be revised, including, but not limited to, the statutes governing writ procedures.

2. Authorizes new topics for the CLRC to study in the Education Code and the Code of Civil Procedure

In addition to authorizing the study of 14 topics that have previously been authorized by the Legislature, this resolution authorizes the CLRC to study two additional topics. The CLRC would be authorized to study whether the Education Code should be revised, including, but not limited to, provisions relating to reporting requirements placed on local education agencies. The CLRC would also be authorized to study whether the Code of Civil Procedure should be revised, including, but not limited to, whether the statutes governing writ procedures should be revised.

According to the author, “[t]he Commission’s request for additional authority relating to LEAs was prompted by a suggestion from the California Association of School Business Officials (CASBO) to study the numerous reporting requirements required of LEAs. The request for additional authority relating to civil procedure was prompted by a suggestion from Justice Daniel H. Bromberg of the Sixth District Court of Appeal to study potential improvements to writ practices.”

The Association of California School Administrators, California Association of School Business Officials, and California School Boards Association write the following in support of the Resolution:

We hold that accountability and transparency are undeniably vital to our public education system. However, we’ve found that the sheer number of required reports reduces transparency by obscuring potentially useful data under a mountain of redundant and difficult-to-decipher reports. In addition, the reporting requirements can detract from the actual work of supporting students by limiting the time and resources available to spend on meeting local needs, ultimately undermining staff’s ability to provide safe, healthy, and productive environments for students. The cost, both in terms of time and dollars, is significant. A recent Getting Down to Facts III technical report estimated that administrators spend an average of approximately 20 hours per week, or $2.73 to $3.56 billion annually, on compliance activities.

Collectively, we have supported numerous efforts to address this problem, including Senate Bill 1315 (Archuleta) and Senate Bill 374 (Archuleta), and supporting research that seeks to quantify the time spent on compliance activities and the associated cost of that time. A study by the Commission would provide a neutral analysis of an increasingly complex issue, providing both policy makers and educational partners with the crucial information needed to consider streamlining reporting requirements, including by identifying areas to eliminate, truncate, or consolidate obsolete or duplicative requirements, so that LEAs can better focus on supporting their students.

SUPPORT

Association of California School Administrators

California Association of School Business Officials

California School Boards Association

OPPOSITION

None known

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: None known.

Prior Legislation:

AB 2125 (Garcia, 2024) would have added a topic for the CLRC to study. Specifically, the bill would have required that on or before September 30, 2027, the CLRC shall deliver to the Legislature a study regarding recusal of judicial officers for prejudice and conflict of interest. The bill died in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 1906 (Gipson, Ch. 233, Stats. 2024) required the CLRC, with input from stakeholders, to complete and submit to the Legislature a study on how to remove the terms “dependent adult” and “dependent person” from existing code sections, including those that use the term “dependent” in conjunction with the term “elder,” as specified.

ACR 24 (Chau, Res. Ch. 108, Stats. 2021) authorized the CLRC to continue its study of 13 topics and added an additional topic of study regarding states of disaster or emergencies.

ACR 173 (Gallagher, Res. Ch. 26, Stats. 2020) authorized the CLRC to continue its study of 13 topics.

SCR 91 (Roth, Res. Ch. 158, Stats. 2018) granted approval to the CLRC to continue its study of designated topics that the Legislature previously authorized or directed the CLRC to study; authorized and requested the CLRC to study and report on topics relating to hazardous waste control and hazardous substances; provided that before commencing work on any project within the list of topics authorized for study by the Legislature, the CLRC shall submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary and any legislative policy committee with jurisdiction over the study’s subject matter; and expressly allowed the CLRC to provide copies of its recommendations to members of a legislative policy committee and invited CLRC staff to hearings for the purpose of explaining recommendations and answering questions from committee members.

ACR 148 (Chau, Res. Ch. 150, Stats. 2016) authorized the CLRC to continue its studies on whether specified laws should be revised; authorized an additional study of the California Public Records Act; provided that before commencing work on any project within the list of topics authorized for study by the Legislature, the CLRC shall submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary and any legislative policy committee with jurisdiction over the study’s subject matter; and expressly allowed the CLRC to provide copies of its recommendations to members of a legislative policy committee and invite CLRC staff to hearings for the purpose of explaining recommendations and answering questions from committee members.

SCR 54 (Padilla, Res. Ch. 115, Stats. 2013) authorized the CLRC to report on and prepare recommended legislation concerning statutes governing access by state and local government agencies to customer information from communications service providers.

AB 567 (Wagner, Res. Ch. 15, Stats. 2013) repealed the requirement that the CLRC make the decennial recommendations, and retained the CLRC’s general authority to study, review, and make recommendations regarding the enforcement of judgments law.

ACR 125 (Papan, Res. Ch. 167, Stats. 2002) authorized the CLRC to study, report on, and prepare recommended legislation concerning the issue of financial privacy to address the protection and control of a consumer’s personal information and provide both administrative and civil penalties.

The following is a list of the prior annual authorizing resolutions for the CLRC:

SCR 83 (Monning, Res. Ch. 63, Stats. 2014)

ACR 98 (Wagner, Res. Ch. 108, Stats. 2012)

ACR 49 (Evans, Res. Ch. 98, Stats. 2009)

ACR 35 (Evans, Res. Ch. 100, Stats. 2007)

SCR 15 (Morrow, Res. Ch. 1, Stats. 2006)

SCR 42 (Campbell, Res. Ch. 122, Stats. 2005)

SCR 4 (Morrow, Res. Ch. 92, Stats. 2003)

ACR 123 (Wayne, Res. Ch. 166, Stats. 2002)

SCR 13 (Morrow, Res. Ch. 78, Stats 2001)

ACR 17 (Wayne, Res. Ch. 81, Stats. 1999)

SCR 65 (Kopp, Res. Ch. 91, Stats. 1998)

SCR 3 (Kopp, Res. Ch. 102, Stats. 1997)

SCR 43 (Kopp, Res. Ch. 38, Stats. 1996)

PRIOR VOTES:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 73, Noes 0)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 14, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 0)

**************

Date of Hearing: April 29, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:ACR 168

Author:(Pacheco) – As Introduced Ver:March 26, 2026

Urgency: State Mandated Local Program: Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This resolution reauthorizes the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) to continue studying 14 previously approved topics and authorizes two new areas of study: the Education Code, including reporting requirements placed on local education agencies; and the Code of Civil Procedure, including statutes governing writ procedures.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Minor and absorbable costs to CLRC (General Fund). The resolution reauthorizes the CLRC’s ongoing study calendar and adds two new topics. Consistent with prior biennial reauthorization resolutions, CLRC is expected to fold the new topics into its existing work calendar at its own pace given current staffing and resources.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, the CLRC must be reauthorized at least once every two-year legislative session to continue its work. This resolution provides that reauthorization and adds two new study topics prompted by external requests: an Education Code study suggested by the California Association of School Business Officials regarding LEA reporting requirements, and a Code of Civil Procedure study suggested by Justice Daniel H. Bromberg of the Sixth District Court of Appeal regarding writ practices.
2. Background. The CLRC was created in 1953 and is tasked with reviewing California statutory and decisional law to identify defects and recommend reforms to the Legislature. CLRC may study topics it identifies in its own calendar of topics or topics assigned directly by the Legislature through statute or concurrent resolution. CLRC cannot begin work on a self-identified topic until the Legislature authorizes the study by concurrent resolution. This resolution reflects CLRC’s recommendations in its annual report covering activities for 2025 and 2026. The resolution requires the CLRC, before commencing work on any authorized project, to submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the Assembly and Senate judiciary committees and any other policy committee with jurisdiction over the subject matter, and to notify those committees of any major changes to the scope of work during the project.

Analysis Prepared by: Shiran Zohar / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 14, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:ACR 168

Author:(Pacheco) – As Introduced Ver:March 26, 2026

proposed consent

SUBJECT: California Law Revision Commission: studies

KEY ISSUE: should the California law revision commission ongoing work studying 14 different areas of the law be reauthorized and should the commission be tasked with two new areas of study?

SYNOPSIS

The California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) was created in 1953 and tasked with the responsibility for an ongoing substantive review of California statutory and decisional law. The CLRC studies the law in order to discover defects and make related recommendations to the Legislature for needed reforms. Once the CLRC identifies a topic for study, it cannot begin to work on the topic until the Legislature, by concurrent resolution, authorizes the CLRC to conduct the study, as it does once every two-year session. This non-controversial resolution is the regular resolution to authorize the CLRC’s topics of study. Like prior such resolutions, it reauthorizes the CLRC to study a number of the topics that the Legislature has previously authorized it to study, a total of 14 subjects. This resolution also tasks the CLRC with studying two new areas of the law. First the CLRC is tasked with examining the Education Code and the many reporting requirements that Code imposes on local education agencies. Secondly, the bill authorizes a new study on writs found within the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no registered support for, or opposition to, this resolution.

SUMMARY: Authorizes the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) to continue its study of 14 topics specified by the Legislature and adds two new additional areas of law for the CLRC to review. Specifically, this measure:

1. Makes the following findings:
   1. That the CLRC is authorized to study topics set forth in the calendar contained in its report to the Governor and the Legislature that have been or are thereafter approved for study by concurrent resolution of the Legislature, and topics that have been referred to the Commission for study by concurrent resolution of the Legislature or by statute; and
   2. That the CLRC, in its annual report covering its activities for 2025 and 2026, recommends continued study of 14 topics, all of which the Legislature has previously authorized or directed the CLRC to study, and the addition of two new topics of study.
2. Resolves that the Legislature approves for continued study by the CLRC the topics listed below, all of which the Legislature has previously authorized or directed the Commission to study, and the addition of two new topics of study:
3. Whether the law should be revised that relates to creditors’ remedies, including, but not limited to, attachment, garnishment, execution, repossession of property (including the claim and delivery statute, self-help repossession of property, and the Commercial Code provisions on repossession of property), confession of judgment procedures, default judgment procedures, enforcement of judgments, the right of redemption, procedures under private power of sale in a trust deed or mortgage, possessory and nonpossessory liens, insolvency, and related matters.
4. Whether the California Probate Code should be revised, including, but not limited to, the issue of whether California should adopt, in whole or in part, the Uniform Probate Code, and related matters.
5. Whether the law should be revised that relates to real and personal property, including, but not limited to, a marketable title act, covenants, servitudes, conditions, and restrictions on land use or relating to land, common interest developments, powers of termination, escheat of property and the disposition of unclaimed or abandoned property, eminent domain, quiet title actions, abandonment or vacation of public streets and highways, partition, rights and duties attendant on assignment, subletting, termination, or abandonment of a lease, and related matters.
6. Whether the law should be revised that relates to family law, including, but not limited to, community property, the adjudication of child and family civil proceedings, child custody, adoption, guardianship, freedom from parental custody and control, and related matters, including other subjects covered by the Family Code.
7. Whether the law relating to discovery in civil cases should be revised.
8. Whether the Evidence Code should be revised.
9. Whether the law relating to arbitration, mediation, and other alternative dispute resolution techniques should be revised.
10. Whether there should be changes to administrative law.
11. Recommendations to be reported pertaining to statutory changes that may be necessitated by court unification.
12. Whether the law of contracts should be revised, including the law relating to the effect of electronic communications on the law governing contract formation, the statute of frauds, the parol evidence rule, and related matters.
13. Whether the law governing the place of trial in a civil case should be revised.
14. Whether the Fish and Game Code and related statutory law should be revised to improve its organization, clarify its meaning, resolve inconsistencies, eliminate unnecessary or obsolete provisions, standardize terminology, clarify program authority and funding sources, and make other minor improvements, without making any significant substantive change to the effect of the law.
15. Whether to study, report on, and prepare recommended legislation to revise Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 25100) and Chapter 6.8 (commencing with Section 25300) of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, and related provisions, to improve the organization and expression of the law.
16. Whether the law should be revised to provide special rules that would apply to an area affected by a state of disaster or emergency declared by the federal government, a state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor under Government Code Section 8625, or a local emergency proclaimed by a local governing body or official under Government Code Section 8630. Requires that the CLRC, before beginning a study under this authority, to provide notice to legislative leadership and any legislative policy committee with jurisdiction over the proposed study topic and to consider any formal or informal feedback received in response to that notice.
17. Whether the Education Code should be revised including, but not limited to, provisions relating to reporting requirements placed on local education agencies.
18. Whether the Code of Civil Procedure should be revised, including, but not limited to, whether the statutes governing writ procedures should be revised.
19. Resolves that before commencing work on any project within the calendar of topics the Legislature has authorized or directed the CLRC to study, the CLRC shall submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the chairs and vice chairs of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, and any other policy committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the study, and if during the course of the project there is a major change to the scope of work, submit a description of the change.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes the CLRC to study topics approved by concurrent resolution of the Legislature. (Government Code Section 8293.)
2. Prohibits an employee or member of the CLRC, with respect to any proposed legislation concerning matters assigned to the CLRC for study, to advocate for the passage or defeat of the legislation by the Legislature or the approval or veto of the legislation by the Governor or appear before any Committee of the Legislature, unless requested to do so by the Committee or its chairperson. (Government Code Section 8288.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: The California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) was created in 1953 and tasked with the responsibility of reviewing California statutory and decisional law. The CLRC studies the law in order to discover defects and make related recommendations to the Legislature for needed reforms. The CLRC’s enabling statute recognizes two types of topics the CLRC is authorized to study: (1) those that the CLRC identifies for study and lists in the Calendar of Topics that it reports to the Legislature; and (2) those that the Legislature assigns to the CLRC directly, by statute or concurrent resolution. Once the CLRC identifies a topic for study, it cannot begin to work on the topic until the Legislature, by concurrent resolution, authorizes the CLRC to conduct the study. Direct legislative assignments have become much more common in recent years, and many of the CLRC’s recent studies were directly assigned by the Legislature. In support of this resolution the author states:

Since 1953, the California Law Revision Commission has reviewed California law and made recommendations on areas in need of reform. To continue this work, the Legislature must reauthorize the Commission’s jurisdiction in a concurrent resolution at least once every two-year legislative session. ACR 168 provides that reauthorization.

In addition to reauthorizing previously approved study topics, ACR 168 authorizes two new topics for review — (1) whether the Education Code should be revised, including, but not limited to, provisions related to reporting requirements placed on local education agencies (LEAs), and (2) whether the Code of Civil Procedure should be revised, including, but not limited to, the statutes governing writ procedures.

The Commission’s request for additional authority relating to LEAs was prompted by a suggestion from the California Association of School Business Officials (CASBO) to study the numerous reporting requirements required of LEAs. The request for additional authority relating to civil procedure was prompted by a suggestion from Justice Daniel H. Bromberg of the Sixth District Court of Appeal to study potential improvements to writ practices.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None on file

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334